Practice Patterns Regarding Apical Support Procedures at Time of Hysterectomy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Comparison of Different Laparoscopic Sacropexy Procedures for Advanced Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term outcomes and complications of 3 different variants of laparoscopic sacropexy.

DESIGN

Single-center retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A tertiary university hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 483 patients with advanced uterine prolapse who underwent laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH), laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with concomitant laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy (LSCH + LSC), or total laparoscopic hysterectomy with concomitant laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TLH + LSC).

INTERVENTIONS

Demographic data, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification scores, questionnaire results, surgical conditions, postoperative outcomes, and complications were all extracted from medical and follow-up records.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Between April 2012 and December 2020, 277 women underwent LSH, 95 women underwent LSCH + LSC, and 111 women underwent TLH + LSC. LSH procedures were associated with statistically significantly least blood loss and least postoperative hospital days and catheterization days (all p <.001). During the median follow-up of 32 months (13-117 months), analysis of the data revealed notable anatomic correction in all groups regarding Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification measurements (p <.001), and the anatomic cure rate showed no significant difference among these 3 groups (p = .273). No statistically significant differences were detected for prolapse recurrence (p = .171) and functional improvements among these groups. Neither intraoperative injuries (p = .098) nor total postoperative complications (p = .218) differed considerably, whereas the rate of severe postoperative complications (p <.001) including mesh exposure (p = .004) was significantly higher in the TLH + LSC group than that in the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LSH is the appropriate choice for women with uterine prolapse without contraindications for uterine preservation. For patients with benign uterine lesions and a normal cervix, LSCH + LSC is a safer approach that provides similar anatomic results and improved quality of life scores that are similar to those of TLH + LSC. For patients with lesions in the uterus and cervix, TLH + LSC should be selected.

The association between surgeon subspecialty training and postoperative outcomes following surgery for pelvic organ prolapse

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse is common and affects 25% to 35% of women worldwide. As this growing patient need is being met by surgeons from diverse training backgrounds, it is important to both characterize the differences in surgeon practice patterns and examine postoperative outcomes to ensure optimal patient care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between surgeon specialty and postoperative outcomes following surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Gynecologic reconstructive surgery targeted database between 2014 and 2018. Pelvic organ prolapse surgeries were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes, and surgical cases performed by urogynecologists or obstetrician-gynecologists were included for analysis. The primary outcome was any 30-day postoperative complication following prolapse surgery. The secondary outcomes were any major or minor postoperative complications, genitourinary complications, reoperation, or readmission within 30-days following surgery. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort, and pairwise analyses were used to describe the differences between the cases performed by the surgeon specialties. Multivariable logistic regression was used to control for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 3358 women underwent prolapse surgery-68% performed by urogynecologists and 32% by obstetrician-gynecologists. The 30-day postoperative complication rate was higher for surgeries performed by obstetrician-gynecologists than for surgeries performed by urogynecologists (10.7% vs 7.0%, respectively; P<.001). There was no difference in the readmission rates between the 2 groups (2.1% vs 2.0%; P=1.000). However, the reoperation rates were higher for surgeries performed by obstetrician-gynecologists (1.8% vs 1.0%; P=.040). In a multivariable logistic regression model controlling for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology class, smoking, and type of concomitant surgery (hysterectomy, apical suspension, other prolapse surgery, obliterative procedure, or sling), prolapse surgery performed by a urogynecologist remained associated with nearly 40% lower odds of any 30-day postoperative complication (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.80).

CONCLUSION

Prolapse surgery performed by a urogynecologist is associated with lower odds of any 30-day postoperative complication than that performed by an obstetrician-gynecologist.

Trends in Apical Suspension at the Time of Hysterectomy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Impact of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare national surgical practice patterns of performing apical suspension procedures (ASPs) at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) before and after the publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2017 Practice Bulletin on POP.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for hysterectomy cases performed for POP indications for the years 2015-2016 and 2018-2019. The primary outcome was the use of ASP at the time of hysterectomy for POP. Secondary outcomes included the use of anterior, posterior, and paravaginal prolapse repair procedures. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with performing a hysterectomy without an ASP.

RESULTS

A total of 11,336 cases were included, and apical prolapse was the primary POP diagnosis in 86.3% of these cases. There was no statistically significant change in the utilization of ASPs in 2018-2019 compared with 2015-2016 (51.4% vs 49.8%, P = 0.081). Urogynecologists were significantly more likely than general gynecologists to perform ASPs (65.6% vs 37.5%, P < 0.001), which was confirmed on multivariable logistic regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 3.257; P < 0.001). The use of concomitant anterior repairs (44.1% vs 39.5%, P < 0.001) and posterior repairs (47.5% vs 41.3%, P < 0.001) increased in the 2018-2019 cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no overall increase in the utilization of concomitant ASPs at the time of hysterectomy done for POP indications despite the 2017 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists practice bulletin. Urogynecologists were more likely to perform ASPs than general gynecologists.

Apical suspension is underutilized for repair of stage IV pelvic organ prolapse: an analysis of national practice patterns in the United States

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Support of the vaginal apex is paramount for a durable repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Our aim is to assess national utilization of apical suspension procedures for the surgical treatment of complete POP. We hypothesize that there might be a high rate of apical suspension with advanced prolapse.

METHODS

The 2006-2016 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for a primary postoperative diagnosis of complete POP. The primary outcome was type of repair. Secondary outcomes included patient characteristics associated with apical suspension or colpocleisis. Procedures were delineated using CPT codes. Chi-squared and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate factors associated with repair type.

RESULTS

A total of 2,784 women underwent surgery for complete POP with a mean age of 64.6 ± 11.0 years. Overall, 1,300 (46.7%) patients underwent apical suspension: 487 sacrocolpopexies (17.5%), 428 extraperitoneal suspensions (15.4%), and 391 uterosacral suspensions (14.0%). 5.2% (144) underwent colpocleisis, and 47.5% (1,332) of women had a concurrent hysterectomy (CH). With CH, 38.6% (502) had apical suspension or colpocleisis versus 69.5% (940) of post-hysterectomy cases. On logistic regression, CH was inversely associated with apical suspension (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37, CI 0.32-0.44, p < 0.001). Colpocleisis was associated with older age (aOR 4.9 per 10 years, CI 3.8-6.3, p < 0.001), post-hysterectomy surgery (aOR 0.23, CI 0.1-0.4, p < 0.001 for CH), and higher comorbidity index (OR 1.7, CI 1.1-2.6, p = 0.009). Complication rates are similar with and without apical suspension (8.2% versus 7.0%, p = 0.269).

CONCLUSIONS

During surgery for complete POP, an apical suspension procedure is performed in 46.7% of patients and is more common post-hysterectomy.

Therapy of pessary-induced rectovaginal fistula and pelvic organ prolapse in elderly patients by vaginal approach and modified LeFort colpocleisis: a case series

PURPOSE

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) presents a common benign condition in women associated with reduced quality of life (QoL). The use of pessaries is considered a first-line treatment of POP. However, pessaries can cause perforations into adjacent organs resulting in fistulas. We present a series of three cases of rectovaginal fistulas (RVF) due to pessary perforation.

METHODS

Three consecutive cases of pessary-induced RVF in patients with POP stage IV were assessed between September 2016 and September 2019. Consensus for therapeutic strategy was reached by an interdisciplinary board.

RESULTS

The RVF were located in the posterior vaginal wall and had a diameter of up to 60 mm. In one of three patients, a two-step approach was chosen with the ostomy being performed at the same time as fistula closure and modified LeFort colpocleisis. It was followed by ostomy closure 3 months later. In two patients, a three-step approach was chosen with the ostomy performed separately due to a local tissue inflammation around RVF. Neither fistula nor POP recurrences have occurred so far.

CONCLUSION

Combined temporary gastrointestinal diversion, RVF closure and POP therapy can be performed as a two- or three-stage approach. Lack of evidence and standardized algorithms in RVF therapy make further clinical studies essential. We encourage the preoperative assessment of any case of complex rectovaginal fistula by an interdisciplinary board for determining an individualized treatment.